…says Adam Serwer at The American Prospect blog. He writes:
In the past few months, we’ve seen a number of shootings performed by white men with right-wing fringe beliefs. But while an attempt to assign the responsibility for the murder of George Tiller, or the killing of police in Pittsburgh, or the assault on the Holocaust Museum to white men as a whole would rightfully be seen as idiotic, there are those who sit poised and prepared assign the alleged actions of one man to an entire people. This is, quite frankly, the best reaction groups like al-Qaeda could hope for: The strength of their narrative of a war between Islam and the West ultimately rests on our own actions. We should not indulge them or those that share a similar worldview.
Dating Jesus 
Exactly! Also, perhaps there should be stories about “Christians” who do violent acts – just to make the point that their actions are not related to the religion. Maybe then, more people would get it.
They’re everywhere — the Holocaust Museum shooter, the suspected killer of George Tiller. But they don’t yell “God is good” when they’re commiting their acts, so it’s not as dramatic. But still…
Yes, but they aren’t reported as “Christian goes on shooting spree”. In fact, “Christian” isn’t mentioned at all because we all know that’s not relevant.
Because we all think we know what “Christian” means and scant few of us have taken the time to educate what being a Muslim means.
To be sure, horrible crimes have been perpetuated in the names of Christianity, atheism (Communism), Judaism and other religions. But is there a discernible Christian minority in the Unites States that would support the deliberate slaughter of 5,000 innocent civilians for any cause? There is clearly such a segment in the Muslim world.
Presidents Bush and Obama have emphasized that we are in “a war against terrorism, not Islam,” and they tell us that hostility towards this faith is wrong. Yet many Americans are concerned about the growing Muslim presence in our country.
Whereas the world’s democracies uphold (for the most part) the separation of church and state, freedom of speech and press, and religious pluralism, Muslim countries do not (again, for the most part). Ordinary Americans can see this. It is not merely a perception; it is truth.
America rejected divine rule (whether by kings or ayatollahs) over 200 years ago and decided in favor of self-rule and the dignity of each individual to pursue their own happiness.
Until Muslim countries around the world do likewise, Islam it is not a faith whose intentions I trust.
I think American history runs counter to the idea of separation of church and state. I believe we just are a little more covert about it. And I appreciate you rconcern about Muslim countries — I don’t embrace theocracies, either — but there are plenty of individual Muslims whose ideas about faith and state mirror mine precisely. And so I can’t condemn the whole damn group any more than any one else can condemn Christianity because of the actions of, say, someone who’d bomb an abortion clinic.
Too true, humans beings all too often “fail of their promise” as Prof. J.R.R. Tolkien once wrote. Even the best of us fall short of our ideals at times; the worst of us… well…
Look, I also abhor judging an entire faith based on the actions of a few individuals. Have been on the wrong end of that equation more than once myself by those who think Asatru means racist.
I’m not tarring individual Muslims with the same broad brush, either. Have met some that I like and respect, such as the fine folks on the “Muslims Against Hunger” team who participate in the Foodshare Walk each year.
Still, Islam — the faith itself, as widely practiced around the world today — has some serious flaws and should not be above criticism… especially not in America. That’s all I’m saying.
We agree on that. No faith is above examination. But I would disagree with your use of “widely.” Can we still be friends?
Of course! :)
I’m guessing you say widely because the average person (regardless of faith) just wants a chance to earn an honest wage and a safe place to live with their family (i.e. peace and harmony). Yes?
I say widely because the Koran itself doesn’t contain a moderating influence like the New Testament, which serves in the Bible to countermand the many “smite thy enemies” passages.
But the Qur’an does contain plenty of peaceful verses that, to me, leaven the violent ones.
On Susan’s column-related blog, in reaction to a post about domestic violence, one man said he was really tired of seeing white men being portrayed badly.
And I believe some one handled that comment graciously and effectively.
Um — “oh stop.”
Nah, the discussion got heated, but SOMEONE was a grown-up. Not me.
Sometimes the violence is related to religion and sometimes not. KKK, for example, although I doubt that most of those bozos actually are members of any church.
No, but their literature — then and now — contains quite a lot of references to Christianity and God. Should any of those people break out their Bibles and actually read them, they won’t find themselves or their actions in there.
The Great White Defense is at the core of our national exceptionalism.
Roeder didn’t murder, he acted in defense of the unborn.
Von Brunn didn’t murder, he acted in defense of the White Race.
Poplawski didn’t murder, he acted in defense of his right to bear arms.
We didn’t invade Afghanistan, we acted in defense of national security.
We didn’t murder innocent civilians, we acted in defense of troops defending national security.
We didn’t murder innocent people in Iraq, mercenaries did that, but they were still acting in defense of Iraqi Freedom.
We didn’t torture, we acted in defense of vulnerable Americans.
But Hasan murders. He attacks and kills American soldiers because he is Muslim. An emotionally disturbed Muslim, but a Muslim nevertheless.
At the risk of sounding racist, I find this to be a predominantly White point of view. And within that predominantly White point of view, I see far too many quotes from the same Scripture.
If you can your side of an argument into a defense of defending, you’ve already won the argument. Thanks, Leftover. I don’t know if this is a white thing, but it certainly is a prevalent thing.
“I don’t know if this is a white thing, but it certainly is a prevalent thing.”
Is a more American thing or do all prevailing nations use the same euphemisms?
I wonder that, myself. I’ve had friends from other countries say that they’d never see so many of their own country’s flag flying, that such a display of nationalism makes them a little nervous, both here and back in their home countries.
The twisted logic of preemptive conflict, that is, taking aggressive action against any perceived threat, is usually regarded as the property of The United States and Israel, in foreign affairs. But the logic has been employed by many nations at many times in order to justify domination and control of regions deemed by the prevailing military force to be too valuable to be left in the control of indigenous peoples and cultures.
Spain and Latin America, (later the US).
North America and just about everybody in Europe eventually culminating a United States annexing the American West.
India and Kashmir.
China and Tibet.
England and Ireland.
Preemptive conflict allows us to do whatever we want. Amazing, yes? Wonder if I could employ that in my personal relationships…oh, wait. I probably already have. Never mind.